Address · Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
2535 Gerrard St E
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
- Location
- 43.68788, -79.27963
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
2These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 2 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Crawford | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 10 November 2014 |
| Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 10 November 2014 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM21012 | Symmetry Developments Inc. | 2535 Gerrard Street East. | Planning and Development, Planning Policy / Study; Planning and Development, Combined Application | 10 November 2014 – 10 November 2017 | 0 |
| SM21028 | Symmetry Developments Inc. | 2535 Gerrard Street East | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 10 November 2014 – 10 November 2014 | 3 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
4- Submitted 8 July 2025Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 25 190414 ESC 20 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 29 April 2025Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 25 150915 ESC 20 OZCouncil Approved · Approved
- Submitted 27 July 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 197246 ESC 36 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 27 July 2015Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 15 197250 ESC 36 SAClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
Data table· 4 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 190414 ESC 20 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 8 July 2025 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 25 150915 ESC 20 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 29 April 2025 | Council Approved Approved |
| 15 197246 ESC 36 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 27 July 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 197250 ESC 36 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 27 July 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 20
11 lobbied · 34 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 11 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 34 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20
13 lobbied · 19 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 13 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 19 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 0.05 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.